RandomPoster
Platinum Member
- May 22, 2017
- 2,584
- 1,794
- 970
We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.
We did. It was right before the end of WWII.
Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.
We did. It was right before the end of WWII.
To be honest, I think he wants to stay in, but only if other countries pick up their share.
No he wants out because of Putin.
Just like when he made a decision to withdraw from Syria. Putin congratulate him. The rest of the world are crying including his own buddies.
What US interests is served by US being in Syria?
To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.
Neither is an US interest. Please try again.
Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.
If the President wants us out of NATO, there's probably a pretty good reason for it. .
That pretty good reason is for his puppet master Putin to give an edge if there is a war in Europe.
The bill was unanimously passed to protect NATO from our moron POTUS.
What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?
To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.
Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?
Try again, loser.
Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.
What was the intent of NATO?
I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?
Trump isn’t right on a lot of issues, but he is right about terminating NATO, bugging out of Syria, and getting along with Russia and NK.That pretty good reason is for his puppet master Putin to give an edge if there is a war in Europe.
The bill was unanimously passed to protect NATO from our moron POTUS.
What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?
To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.
Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?
Try again, loser.
Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.
What was the intent of NATO?
I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?
The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.
Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.
I think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?So the only reason that justifies our presence in South Korea is because we owe them protection from China because of the Vietnam war? That’s an interesting take. If it weren’t for Vietnam do you think we shouldn’t have a military presence over there?How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.
That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?
We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.
We did. It was right before the end of WWII.
Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.
No he wants out because of Putin.
Just like when he made a decision to withdraw from Syria. Putin congratulate him. The rest of the world are crying including his own buddies.
What US interests is served by US being in Syria?
To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.
Neither is an US interest. Please try again.
Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.
We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.
That pretty good reason is for his puppet master Putin to give an edge if there is a war in Europe.
The bill was unanimously passed to protect NATO from our moron POTUS.
What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?
To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.
Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?
Try again, loser.
Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.
What was the intent of NATO?
I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?
1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.
2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.
Wow, and somehow, you forgot to mention Russia attacking it's neighbors and stealing land.How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsFair point. But I think people are using the Estonia line to try and discredit NATO as a whole. Why not just protest the inclusion of Estonia if you don’t like the risk?
I would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
No he wants out because of Putin.
Just like when he made a decision to withdraw from Syria. Putin congratulate him. The rest of the world are crying including his own buddies.
What US interests is served by US being in Syria?
To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.
Neither is an US interest. Please try again.
Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.
We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.
True, but as the worlds superpower it is best for us to be smart with how we lead and engage with our allies and enemies through strong diplomacy rather than retreat and let somebody else fill the power vacuumI think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?So the only reason that justifies our presence in South Korea is because we owe them protection from China because of the Vietnam war? That’s an interesting take. If it weren’t for Vietnam do you think we shouldn’t have a military presence over there?How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?
Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.
That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?
It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.
Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.
Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.
Both are dangers to be avoided.
What was the intent of NATO, you red baiting fucker?
To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.
Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?
Try again, loser.
Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.
What was the intent of NATO?
I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?
1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.
2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.
1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.
2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.
Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.
Wow, and somehow, you forgot to mention Russia attacking it's neighbors and stealing land.How do you feel about our military presence and alliance with South Korea given its proximity to North Korea? Worth the risk or no?Perhaps our military and intelligence agencies saw it as an asset for us to use for better intel and positioning our our military. Not to protect Europe but for our own nations interestsI would have, if it had gotten more press leading up to the expansion.
WIth the collapse of the Soviet Empire, and the expansion of Europe, AND the widening economic gap between Europe and Russia, AND the demographic collapse of Russia, AND the lose of the ideological edge,
Europe has a vast economic and population advantage over Russian, and does not need US to protect themselves.
They are being cheap and lazy.
I'd like to see any report they might have generated with those arguments, specifically what American Interests, and if that report detailed how extremely difficult it would be for US to defend Estonia.
Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
Glad that doesn't happen anymore.
Or does it?
What US interests is served by US being in Syria?
To stabilize the region or protect the Kurds from getting massacred by turkeys. To stop Putin your buddy and Assad taking over Middle East spreading terrorism.
Neither is an US interest. Please try again.
Neither of those are correct, but you have not hit upon the correct answer either.
We cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world. The only way to protect ourselves is to keep the problem as distant as possible. Nothing in gained by overthrowing Assad and replacing him with radical islamo- fascists.
True we cannot fix the Muslim or the Arab world but distancing ourselves do not solve the problem either.
Because.
1. With the presence of US troops in Syria helps or somehow stabilize the region. Turkey is ready to invade PKK territory as soon as US troops leave.
2. Prevent Syria, Iran and Russia taking over ME.
3. What do you think is going to happen if and when Iran takes over the Persian Gulf or Gulf of Oman?
4. What do you think is going to happen to US interest in that region?
5. The only one that supports your opinion is Tucker or Fox News. So far I have not heard or seen any military personnel or law makers both republicans or democrat support the idea of withdrawing from NATO or Syria.
True, but as the worlds superpower it is best for us to be smart with how we lead and engage with our allies and enemies through strong diplomacy rather than retreat and let somebody else fill the power vacuumI think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?So the only reason that justifies our presence in South Korea is because we owe them protection from China because of the Vietnam war? That’s an interesting take. If it weren’t for Vietnam do you think we shouldn’t have a military presence over there?Cold War is over. The reason for our alliance with them is long gone.
There is a debt of honor to those South Koreans who fought along side US in Korea and Vietnam, but those guys are old and fading away while the young South Koreans, from everything I hear are just as poisoned with anti-American liberalism as our own.
And the risk is not from North Korean, but from China.
South Korea by itself could defend itself from North Korea easily. China? Not so much.
You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.
That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?
It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.
Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.
Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.
Both are dangers to be avoided.
You could be right. Without knowing all the intel that influenced those decisions I can’t really pass judgement.True, but as the worlds superpower it is best for us to be smart with how we lead and engage with our allies and enemies through strong diplomacy rather than retreat and let somebody else fill the power vacuumI think prevention of another world war is a pretty good reason to me. Not you?So the only reason that justifies our presence in South Korea is because we owe them protection from China because of the Vietnam war? That’s an interesting take. If it weren’t for Vietnam do you think we shouldn’t have a military presence over there?
You did not address the fact that the initial reason for their presence is gone.
That seems very relevant to me. Should I take your silence on that point as agreement?
It was a good reason, when the trip line was in the middle of Europe. The strong united front deterred war.
Now, the trip line is a thousand miles to the East.
Entangling alliances have caused just as many World Wars as appeasement.
Both are dangers to be avoided.
Pushing the trip line to the Russian border was not smart.
Putting military forces into the black sea in support of people fighting Russia, was not smart.
Wanting to set up a no fly zone, that would have required US pilots to possibly fire on Russia planes to enforce, was the exact opposite of smart.
Smart left the building a long time ago. We now have to deal with the situation that stupid gave us.
De-escalation of tension is the smart thing to do now.
We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.
We did. It was right before the end of WWII.
Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.
Your knowledge of history is equivalent to that of a preschooler.
We should ally with Russia and split up the NATO countries between us.
We did. It was right before the end of WWII.
Well it's time we make it official then and plant our flag.
Your knowledge of history is equivalent to that of a preschooler.
I know enough about history to know that the current state of our NATO allies is sad. More importantly, I know enough of our current situation to decide that it is best to give up on them and start looking for new allies.
To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.
Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?
Try again, loser.
Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.
What was the intent of NATO?
I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?
1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.
2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.
1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.
2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.
Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.
1. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is a pale shadow of that real threat. Putin dreams of someday controlling the Ukraine, a nation that has been part of the Russian empire for centuries. That is not something that America needs to be involved in.
2. Your attempt to conflate some internet trolls with "invasion" is noted and laughed at. lol!
3. I took your insults to my President somewhat personally, as a supporter. So, I responded appropriately. And that fact that you were red baiting and it is absurd to do so at this late date, is completely fair.
Pale threat?To counter the aggressiveness of your comrades.
To stabilize peace in that region from your comrade.
You may want to ask neighboring countries that are shaking of fear from Putin invasion.
Anything else you little piece of dog shit Putin lover?
Try again, loser.
Say it . YOu know that answer. Stop playing your libtard games.
What was the intent of NATO?
I answered your question. Did you read my post or you just stared at it?
1. The answer is to protect Western Europe from invasion by the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union is gone now. Questioning an alliance when the reason for the alliance is gone, is completely reasonable.
2. Responding by calling someone a "Dog shit lover" is the act of an asshole who knows on some level, that they are in the wrong, but are too intellectually cowardly and vile to admit it.
1. From your post. Soviet Union is gone but Putin interest of de stabilization of western countries is very well alive. Invasion of his neighboring countries are evidence. Invading my country USA democracy is not acceptable.
Supporting countries and selling arms that sponsors terrorism like Iran and Syria. Etc etc etc etc.
2. You started it jerk. You just called me ........ red baiting fucker.
So I retaliated calling you ...... dog shit Putin lover.
Why don’t you just stick with the topic instead of calling people other names?
When people like you started this kind insulting calling other names..... Is an indications that you are losing or a loser.
1. Soviet Union is gone. Russia is a pale shadow of that real threat. Putin dreams of someday controlling the Ukraine, a nation that has been part of the Russian empire for centuries. That is not something that America needs to be involved in.
2. Your attempt to conflate some internet trolls with "invasion" is noted and laughed at. lol!
3. I took your insults to my President somewhat personally, as a supporter. So, I responded appropriately. And that fact that you were red baiting and it is absurd to do so at this late date, is completely fair.